NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JASWINDER SINGH
,

Petitioner
,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR
, Attorney General
,

Respondent

. No. 17

- 70 392

Agency No. A205

- 145

- 375

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted Ju ly 10 , 2020 * * Seattle
, Washington

Before: NGUYEN and BUMATAY , Circuit Judge s , and SEEBORG, ** * District Judge.

Petitioner Jaswinder Singh petition s for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”)

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Richard Seeborg , United States District Judge for the Northern District of California , sitting by designation. 

# FILED

JUL 14 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

denial of his application for asylum , withholding of removal, and protection under
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review q uestions of law de novo

and factual findings for substantial evidence. Cui v. Mukasey , 538 F.3d 1289,
1290 (9th Cir. 2008). Because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision,

we deny the petition for review

.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“ INA ”) , the IJ may base an
adverse credibility determination on the consistency of the applicant’s account

with his own statements and other evidence or the inherent plausibility of the
applicant’s testimony. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) . The IJ may consider “any
inaccuracies or falsehoods in [the applicant’s] statements . . . without regard to

whether [it] goes to the heart of the applicant ’ s claim.” Id

. Because the IJ is in
“the best position to assess demeanor and other credibility cues,” Shrestha v.

Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010)
, “ [o] nly the most extraordinary
circumstances will justify overturning an adverse credibility determination.” Silva

Pereira v. Lynch , 827 F.3d 1176, 1185 (9th Cir. 2016) (simplified).

Substant ial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding. T he agency

identified multiple inconsistencies in Singh’s testimony regarding a central aspect
of his claim: his alleged beating by rival party members. For example, i n his

declaration and testimony under cross examination, Singh claimed there had been
another party member present during a beating, but in his testimony under direct3

examination, Singh did not mention another member.
Singh’s testimony also conflicted with the documentary evidence. He

claimed that after the beating, he had remained unconscious for one day,
contradicting documentary evidence from the hospital stating he was unconscious
for two hours. Singh tried to explain this discrepancy by saying he was given

sleep

- inducing medicati on after waking, but this also conflicted with hospital’s

record evidence.

Moreover, t he IJ found several aspects of Singh’s testimony evasive or

exaggerated. While Singh testified that he stopped members of the Congress Party

and another rival politica l party from selling drugs and buying votes, under
questioning, he claimed he had never actually seen anyone participating in these

activities.

“[A] dministrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable
adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrar y. ” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B) (emphasis added). Nothing in the record compels us to accept
Singh’s proffered explanations for the multiple inconsistencies in his testimony.

Under this “ extreme ly deferential” standard of review , we decline to disturb the

agency’s adverse credibility finding. Farah v. Ashcroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th

Cir. 2003).

Absent credible testimony, Singh cannot sustain his burden to demonstrate4

entitlement to asylum or withholding of removal . Nor may w e reach Singh’s

request for relief under the CAT because Singh failed to exhaust this claim before

the BIA. Barron v. Ashcroft
, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004)

. The petition for review is DENIED

.